Cool Libertarians

reasononline ^ | July 30, 2002 | By Jeremy Lott

[RANDomScout]

In this, my last scheduled contribution to Editor’s Links, I want to say a few nice words about libertarians – a much-maligned, funny, quarrelsome lot of people who were kind enough to foot my bills this summer.

One of the great things about laissez-faire types is that they’re not in power and – truth be told – they have no desire to be. This is seen by some as a bad thing; a sign that libertarians aren’t “serious people.” But the approach is not without its benefits.

Right- and left-wingers are tethered to partisan political movements or political parties, which can be a weights of albatross-like proportions. Advancing a party’s propaganda and interests often contorts and warps reality all out of recognizable proportion. For instance, a recent Washington Monthly review of right-wing bomb thrower Ann Coulter’s new book Slander relayed her claim that “for about twenty years now, all new ideas have bubbled up from the right wing.” The incredulous reviewer asked “All new ideas? All? Air Jordans? The Macarena? Pizza Hut's Stuffed-Crust Pizza?”

Across the aisle are odious pundits like Joe Conason who, in his Salon blog today credited “big government” with saving the Pennsylvania coal miners, reminded readers that Ted Bundy was a young Republican (only one step removed from Ralph Reed), and compared the Bush administration’s attempts to have hiring and firing flexibility in the newly created Department of Homeland Security to the anti-union “obsession[s] of totalitarian regimes and their imitators.” He justified this last charge by explaining – I am not making this up – that if Ann Coulter could be nasty then so could he.

Libertarians are sometimes damned as purists, but at least they aren’t as predictable or as boring as their sniping counterparts on the right and left. They’re also – and I say this from experience – a whole lot more fun. They lack the anti-corporate nervous tics of progressives (“Oh, I couldn’t order Dominos. Do you have any idea what kind of causes they finance?!”) and the woe is us moralistic hang-ups of conservatives (“There was sex on TV last night! We’re doomed.”).

A startlingly diverse group, the only common ground that all libertarians share is a desire to live in a society in which people are truly free – of wars, of petty government regulations, of a creeping Puritanism that holds suspect any fun activity. That might be a pipe dream, but it's one I’ve come to share.

Jeremy Lott is Reason's 2002 Burton C. Gray Memorial intern.

[Clint N. Suhks]

Oh, kewl name. Heh. Real moral.

Hey, Great come back, did you think long about that one? When you want to be part of a society that knows right from wrong then you may be significant. Otherwise, legislate representatives that make up our government instead of being the anarchists that you are. You Liberaltarians represent the selfishness and hedonism that makes this country base and repugnant. Go Away!

[gcruse]

No.

[Clint N. Suhks]

That's all right, we'll just keep voting you away.

[redrock]

"I guess you mean the religious police that knock down your door to drag you to church every Sunday?"

Hey..who in the hell told you about some of our quaint (cute??) practices here in Utah??????

Supposed to be a secret........

redrock

[gcruse]

That's all right, we'll just keep voting you away.

Actually, if this...

 that makes this country base and repugnant

... is the result of your voting,
    maybe you need to go.

[ellery]

You have every right to stand up for your principles and morals, and shout them from the rooftops! The question is whether we should entrust individuals to influence others in society to do right...or whether we want to have the government enforce it. The libertarian viewpoint is that the government should be in charge of punishing people who harm others (murderers, etc.), and citizens should be free to raise their families, influence their friends and convince the world about their moral principles -- but without use of government force.

[ellery]

By the way, for all of you who think government should be in the business of deciding what's moral (instead of people, societies, communities deciding what's moral), consider this:
-Our government is a long way toward considering guns immoral.
-Our government is a long way toward considering the condemnation of homosexuals immoral (even if it's part of one's religion)

Should I go on? Still think it's a good idea to give government the power to decide the country's morals? Because they might not decide the way you want them to.

[Clint N. Suhks]

... is the result of your voting, maybe you need to go.

Sorry Betty, just when did right from wrong get voted out?

[gcruse]

Should I go on? Still think it's a good idea to give government
the power to decide the country's morals? Because they might not
decide the way you want them to.

Kevin has this problem, see?  He favors outlawing
vice,  immorality, marujuana and victimless crimes
because they degrade society.  The problem is that
by outlawing such a huge chunk of human behavior,
Kevin's lifestyle laws are turning most Americans
into scofflaws if not outright criminals.  This has
the effect of corroding citizenship which leads
to a degrading of society.  Kevin is causing that
which he laments.  In addition, he rails against
nanny government, even as the bureaucracy
necessary to fulfull his will becomes it.

Unfortunately, Kevin is not unique.

[gcruse]

Well, libertarians are .03% of the electorate, I hear. We don't have the power or numbers to turn America into the
base and reprobate society of your description. You're the one with the vote that counts. What are you doing wrong?

[Texasforever]

Hey..who in the hell told you about some of our quaint (cute??) practices here in Utah??????

Yeah but the trade-off is all of those wives. LOL. Well..OTH that may or may not be so great. Geeze decisions decisions.

[Clint N. Suhks]

The libertarian viewpoint is that the government should be in charge of punishing people who harm others (murderers, etc.),

Ahh, harming society is of no consequence to you? Libertarianism is selfishness and base. You too are welcome to create your own society, try Amsterdam.

[tpaine]

Our government is a long way toward considering guns immoral.

---

You would be amazed at how many 'conservatives' here at FR, think that state governments have the 'right' to, in effect, consider guns immoral, and regulate the possession of so called assault weapons as does California.

-- Texasforever is one such. - Mindboggling, no?

[Texasforever]

You would be amazed at how many 'conservatives' here at FR, think that state governments have the 'right' to, in effect, consider guns immoral, and regulate the possession of so called assault weapons as does California.

California would be stupid to allow you to own a gun. LOL

[Clint N. Suhks]

You're the one with the vote that counts. What are you doing wrong?

That would be the right thing, do you know right from wrong? Or, are you just selfish?

[tpaine]

Ahhh yes, 'harming society'.
-- It's for the children no doubt. - Like Hillary, you've been suhking around Clintn far too long.

[gcruse]

 
That would be the right thing, do you
know right from wrong? Or, are you just selfish?

I think I know right from wrong.
Anything that initiates force against
another if wrong.  Everything else
is up to the individual.

And I am retiring for the night.

Ciao.

[Clint N. Suhks]

Ahhh yes, 'harming society'.

Sorry, you're right, society can’t be harmed. I’ts impregnable.